In the face of reports that it had submitted documents to the court with at least three gross errors in the matter regarding ExxonMobil and its parent company guarantee, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that it will respond after the judicial process is completed.
“I saw the claims but the matter is under judicial consideration; it is sub judice, so we won’t reply until after the case,” Director of the EPA, Kemraj Parsram told the Sunday Stabroek when contacted for a response.
In the Stabroek News’ Diaspora column of May 8, attorney Melinda Janki highlighted that during the case, “The Applicants’ lawyers raised numerous objections in their submissions of 13th February 2023 including that the document named Egypt not Guyana, was issued by an Esso affiliate not an insurance company, was unsigned, and had already expired on 31st January 2023!”
The same errors were pointed out by Guyanese-Canadian professor, Dr Alissa Trotz who said in a letter to this newspaper that from looking at the document, the EPA should answer to this nation, three pertinent questions.
“1. The Period of Insurance in the document lodged with the court clearly says “From 1st February 2022 to 31st January, 2023, both days inclusive Local Standard Time at the address of the Named Insured.” This means that even as this case is going to appeal, NO valid insurance exists. Is the EPA aware that it holds an expired and therefore invalid insurance policy? 2. Instead of a signature, there is what appears to be a company stamp, AON UK Limited. Is the EPA aware that the document they have and that was lodged with the courts is missing signatures and can they tell the Guyanese public who AON UK Limited is?” Dr. Trotz questioned.
She continued, “3. On Page 26 of the document, the territorial limits specified for an insurance document covering Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) and/or Hess Guyana Exploration Limited and/or CNOOC Petroleum Guyana Limited, is “onshore and offshore Egypt however worldwide in respect of Transit and Cargo.” What does the reference to Egypt mean?? Is Exxon aware that the document they have and that was lodged with the courts refers to Egypt and not Guyana?”
That important documents such as the insurance for a company, already lacking a parent company guarantee, are unsigned, expired, and identify Egypt for operations taking place offshore in Guyana’s waters, smacks of disrespect to the citizens of this country and by extension the Caribbean, she said.
Trotz posited that whether a person is for or against oil drilling, and even those at home and abroad who remain unconvinced of the need for a parent company guarantee, the EPA should seek to address the concerns.
The EPA Director has assured that the agency has taken note of the concerns and will address them in due course.
High Court Judge, Sandil Kissoon, earlier this month ruled in a matter brought against the EPA by citizens Frederick Collins and Godfrey Whyte, that the company had failed to meet its obligations as per the permit agreement it has with this country.
Justice Kissoon had said that in the course of the proceedings, the court found on the evidence that EEPGL was engaged in a “disingenuous attempt which was calculated to deceive when it sought to dilute its liabilities and settled obligations stipulated and expressed in clear unambiguous terms at Condition 14 of the Environmental Permit (Renewed) while simultaneously optimising production at the Liza Phase 1 Petroleum Production Project in the Stabroek Block Offshore Guyana.”
Collins and Whyte had argued through their attorneys that “…the agency, through its human minds, including its officers has failed or omitted to carry out or to show that it has carried out its legal duties and or obligations thereby amounting to misfeasance in public office by them and by failing or omitting to act, has acted unreasonably, irregularly or improperly and or has abused its power.”
The court said it found that Esso was never in doubt as to what its liabilities were, as captured under Condition 14 of the Permit, as the stipulations were neither unusual, unique, nor unauthorised.
The judge declared the EPA to be in breach of its statutory duty by its failure and/or omissions to enforce compliance by EEPGL of its financial assurance obligations, and keep indemnified, the agency and the Government of Guyana against all environmental obligations of the permit holder and co-venturers within the Stabroek Block.
The orders made by Justice Kissoon are to be carried out no later than June 10.
The EPA sought a stay on the ruling but this was not been granted. In fact, Appeal Court Judge, Rishi Persaud, said that the stay will only be addressed if there is a need, since he intends to complete the matter before him, way in advance of the June 10 deadline set by the High Court for the EPA’s compliance.
Tomorrow, Justice Persaud will hear arguments on the appeal.
